Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

I don't get it... why is the musicality of Chopin's etudes being questioned?

They are NOT being questioned. You are welcome to ignore anyone who feels differently, they do not know what they are talking about. I could just as easily listen to the Opus 10 etudes as well as I could the Opus 28 preludes.

I think a big difference between the Chopin Etudes and the ones by Liszt or Rachmaninov is that the Chopin Etudes are mostly much shorter.

Thus one cannot really expect them to be as musically developed as a longer work. But, for me, that doesn't make the huge majority of them less significant than the etudes of Rachmaninov or Liszt anymore than one would say the mostly very short Chopin Prelude(quite a few of which could pass as etudes) are minor works.

You know, I was going to give a counterexample, but I realized my counterexample runs 3 minutes -_-(Rachmaninoff Moment Musical no.4 (op.16))

I guess on top of that, Rachmaninoff/Liszt etudes are much less focused.

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 20371
Loc: New York City

Originally Posted By: argerichfan

Originally Posted By: JoelW

I don't get it... why is the musicality of Chopin's etudes being questioned?

They are NOT being questioned. You are welcome to ignore anyone who feels differently, they do not know what they are talking about. I could just as easily listen to the Opus 10 etudes as well as I could the Opus 28 preludes.

I do not understand the nonsense here.

Being arrogant and dismissive is rarely a good way to convince anyone of anything.

I happen to agree that the Chopin Etudes are very good music, but we've already had a few including a conservatory student who feel differently so their musical worth has clearly been questioned and by some sophisticated pianists. These are their opinions.

I don't get it... why is the musicality of Chopin's etudes being questioned?

They are NOT being questioned. You are welcome to ignore anyone who feels differently, they do not know what they are talking about. I could just as easily listen to the Opus 10 etudes as well as I could the Opus 28 preludes.

I do not understand the nonsense here.

Being arrogant and dismissive is rarely a good way to convince anyone of anything.

I happen to agree that the Chopin Etudes are very good music, but we've already had a few including a conservatory student who feel differently so their musical worth has clearly been questioned and by some sophisticated pianists. These are their opinions.

Probably only because of their titles... it might create some sort of prejudice. Now, obviously the op. 10 etudes are fairly early works by the young Chopin and are obviously lacking the mature complexity of his later compositions, but they're still marvelous gems -- rivaling his other compositions of the same time period. The op. 25, however, is an absolutely extraordinary collection of music and I don't see how anyone could question these colorful pieces' musicality. If they weren't entitled 'etudes' I'd bet people with such criticisms would think differently.

Being arrogant and dismissive is rarely a good way to convince anyone of anything.

I happen to agree that the Chopin Etudes are very good music, but we've already had a few including a conservatory student who feel differently so their musical worth has clearly been questioned and by some sophisticated pianists. These are their opinions.

Thanks.

If I'm allowed to bring argumentum ad verecundiam into this, may I add that I believe most teachers (people with doctorates from prestigious conservatories) would agree with the "Chopin etudes do not stand very well as just music" camp.

Might I add that I agree that some of the etudes are good music that I enjoy listening to, but I like them for a similar reason to why I like some of Alkan's even more simplistic etudes; They are charming, but they don't move me the way the 4th Ballade does. If I didn't like how they sounded, I wouldn't have worked on op.10 no.4 for 1 year, or op.25 no.6 for 5 hours a day for a full month, but I don't really want to go to a concert and listen to someone play them either (hence, I did not pay 40 dollars to go see Lang Lang play a bunch of Chopin etudes last year).

IMO it's impossible to talk about musical worth objectively, there's always the element of personal taste involved. So I cannot be offended or even surprised that some of you think the etudes don't have much musical worth.

Anyway, I listen to the etudes in two ways: The whole cycle, which almost kind of melts into one larger work, a display of varied musical ideas and techniques. Then I may listen to individual ones. Not all of them are very interesting to me individually, so I would agree that their individual musical worth varies a lot. Have to admit I don't care for the revolutionary that much, but I never seem to get tired of hearing a good rendition of 10-2, maybe not so much because of deep musical worth, but the genious addictiveness of it

I think my enjoyment is actually increased because they are short. I often prefer shorter works of music. Maybe partly because I am very easily bored. I't so much better having to wish something lasted longer than wishing it ended already

I am not a fan of either Liszt or Rach, but I enjoy some of their compositions. I don't like everything written by old Fred either. I judge every piece of music individually, but some styles and forms appeal to me more than others.

Mark_C
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 20323
Loc: New York

Originally Posted By: outo

....Have to admit I don't care for the revolutionary that much....

I think there's a high chance that's totally because of its familiarity. It's a remarkable and striking piece of music -- musically.

As per what you said, of course that's subjective and personal. But I'm telling you. In view of what your tastes and preferences seem to be, it's hard for me to imagine it wouldn't be that way for you.

The remarkableness of the music depends on an excellent performance, including good attention to dynamics -- which, as has been said, doesn't always happen, even in performances by top professionals.

Back to the nature of cheating in etudes, I'm currently cheating the last bit of Liszt's "Un Sospiro". The right hand arpeggios are a bit ridiculous near the end, and I just cross over with my left hand...because hand crossing is one of the technical elements of this piece, and with only a week to learn it before performing it, putting in the extra practice isn't worth it.

Back to the nature of cheating in etudes, I'm currently cheating the last bit of Liszt's "Un Sospiro". The right hand arpeggios are a bit ridiculous near the end, and I just cross over with my left hand...because hand crossing is one of the technical elements of this piece, and with only a week to learn it before performing it, putting in the extra practice isn't worth it.

I do think that we probably obsess too much about playing music the way it's written rather than in the way that puts the music across better, or that suits our technique better, or that makes more sense to us. Most professional concert pianists have no such qualms, as I've witnessed often in live concerts.

Probably the most common is the redistribution of hands - just watch Mikhail Pletnev, who possesses one of the most transcendental techniques around, playing Chopin's last Prelude from Op.28: http://youtu.be/weNs4NuhJ0g

_________________________
"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."

I think there's a high chance that's totally because of its familiarity. It's a remarkable and striking piece of music -- musically.

As per what you said, of course that's subjective and personal. But I'm telling you. In view of what your tastes and preferences seem to be, it's hard for me to imagine it wouldn't be that way for you.

It's true that too many bad/mediocre performances can totally ruin a piece for me...The revolutionary has it's moments, but I think it's just not so much to my musical taste as a whole. I'd say my favorites in addition to 10-2 are 10-6, 10-9, 10-10, 25-1, 25-07, 25-10, 25-12. But sometimes you hear a performance of the others that totally hits home

Mark_C
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 20323
Loc: New York

Originally Posted By: currawong

But don't you say "go to school" in the US?

Good point! And that gets into an aspect of this that I thought of saying in the other post but didn't want to take up more space.

The thing is, those words in British apparently have a slightly different additional connotation -- as is the case for the word "school" in the U.S. When we say "go to school," the word has a slightly different, broader meaning than when we say go to a school.

The words "university" and "hospital" don't have such an additional broader meaning in the U.S, and that's why it sounds a little strange for us to hear them without any article. I'm guessing that in the U.K., they do.

currawong
6000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/15/07
Posts: 6058
Loc: Down Under

Originally Posted By: Mark_C

The thing is, those words in British apparently have a slightly different additional connotation -- as is the case for the word "school" in the U.S. When we say "go to school," the word has a slightly different, broader meaning than when we say go to a school.

Yes, I'd noticed that you use "school" for just about every educational institution. Here we'd never say "school starts again this week" about college, or university, or anything other than, well, school, the school you go to from the age of 5-18 (approximately).

Originally Posted By: Mark_C

The words "university" and "hospital" don't have such an additional broader meaning in the U.S, and that's why it sounds a little strange for us to hear them without any article.

But "college" does have this broader meaning, like the way we use "university", yes?

The thing is, those words in British apparently have a slightly different additional connotation -- as is the case for the word "school" in the U.S. When we say "go to school," the word has a slightly different, broader meaning than when we say go to a school.

Yes, I'd noticed that you use "school" for just about every educational institution. Here we'd never say "school starts again this week" about college, or university, or anything other than, well, school, the school you go to from the age of 5-18 (approximately).

Originally Posted By: Mark_C

The words "university" and "hospital" don't have such an additional broader meaning in the U.S, and that's why it sounds a little strange for us to hear them without any article.

But "college" does have this broader meaning, like the way we use "university", yes?

I used to think it odd that when chatting to Americans of well beyond school age, they say they go to school, until I realized they meant a higher establishment like university.

Luckily, most other ex-British colonies still use 'school' and 'university' in a manner understandable to us. Somehow, saying that you go to "Oxford School" doesn't sound as impressive as going to Oxford University. I wonder if "Harvard School" is just as good as Harvard University.....

_________________________
"I don't play accurately - anyone can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression. As far as the piano is concerned, sentiment is my forte. I keep science for Life."